acinteyyo wrote:But it is what the Buddha taught. Let's see what's everything, the All.

Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."SN35.23

Please note: The sutta doesn't say that nothing exists outside of "The All". It merely states that one cannot explain it. Furthermore, saying "it lies beyond range" appears to hint that there may be "something".

sabbe dhamma anatta

Not everything has to be included in "dhamma", especially "sabbe dhamma".

Since Nibbāna, for example, is not rooted in desire and is not mind made - thus sabbe dhamma excludes at least one thing, Nibbāna.

And

Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." MN22

Here again the word "dhamma" also has limited scope. So "sabbe dhamma anatta" might not refer to absolutely everything describable and not describable.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

reflection wrote:And well, frankly I think nobody does and people mistake some form of mind-consciousness as God consciousness or nibbana consciousness.

But do you personally have an experience of a form of mind-consciousness that could be mistaken in that manner?

I can imagine how people take the seeming continuity of mind-consciousness as such, or how they can take still & deep meditative states to be outside of the aggregates. Or as if there is a layer underneath the six senses. There may be other ways.

But I don't think the dhamma is to be practiced and proven for oneself by disproving all other possibilities one by one.

binocular wrote:Yes, those who assume in various ways. There may be problems for those who assume, this is well-established.The passage you quoted doesn't say anything about people who might have revelation from God.

And that assumes that there is some sort of god thing from which one can have a revelation. God spoke to the Son-of-Sam through a black dog, though I have to admit I do have direct experience with dog. My dog experience has, however, not lead me to kill anyone, but it is a rather beautiful expression of unconditional love.

Given the various claims of revelation from some sort of god things can be highly contradictory, that god thing must have a very perverse sense of humor. The Kosha quote is to the point.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

kirk5a wrote:In other words, "no," isn't that the straightforward answer?

It could be mistaken as such, so if I had to pick I'd say "yes" instead of "no". But what does it matter?

It matters because then we have some idea what you are basing your opinion on. So if it's "yes" then what is this "mind-consciousness" like? Can you put some words to it, try to describe the characteristics of this state you are talking about?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

For example when the 5 'common' senses shut down and only mind is left, because it is quite a different experience from the usual, I can imagine some people may think that they found something that is outside of the ordinary, outside of the aggregates. While it is just the mind that is left.

Or the sense of there being some sense of continuity in consciousness, like there is a commonality shared between sight, hearing, touch etc. Some people call it the 'awareness'. But this commonality is the mind consciousness and not outside of the aggregates. Perhaps some people think this can exist without a sense awareness, but in my eyes awareness is not existing without an object.

And of course, wishful thinking. To say there is some consciousness existing in/of nibbana is easier to accept than nibbana being the end of all consciousness. And so this is what a lot of minds will naturally turn towards I think. The mind turns that into the 'truth' even if just to protect itself.

But my advise is to investigate assumptions like this deeper and see if they fit into the aggregates. Not to say this is right and the rest is wrong.

reflection wrote:For example when the 5 'common' senses shut down and only mind is left, because it is quite a different experience from the usual, I can imagine some people may think that they found something that is outside of the ordinary, outside of the aggregates. While it is just the mind that is left.

Or the sense of there being some sense of continuity in consciousness, like there is a commonality shared between sight, hearing, touch etc. Some people call it the 'awareness'. But this commonality is the mind consciousness and not outside of the aggregates. Perhaps some people think this can exist without a sense awareness, but in my eyes awareness is not existing without an object.

And of course, wishful thinking. To say there is some consciousness existing in/of nibbana is easier to accept than nibbana being the end of all consciousness. And so this is what a lot of minds will naturally turn towards I think. The mind turns that into the 'truth' even if just to protect itself.

But my advise is to investigate assumptions like this deeper and see if they fit into the aggregates. Not to say this is right and the rest is wrong.

So you're saying that based upon your own personal experience, you are clear about this "mind consciousness" experience, but Ven. Thanissaro is confused about the whole thing, misleading everyone, and engaging in wishful thinking in talking about "consciousness without surface." Really what he is talking about, and what the suttas are referring to with "viññanam anidassanam" - according to you, is simply what you've seen, which is just mind-consciousness. Right?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

reflection wrote:For example when the 5 'common' senses shut down and only mind is left, because it is quite a different experience from the usual, I can imagine some people may think that they found something that is outside of the ordinary, outside of the aggregates. While it is just the mind that is left.

Or the sense of there being some sense of continuity in consciousness, like there is a commonality shared between sight, hearing, touch etc. Some people call it the 'awareness'. But this commonality is the mind consciousness and not outside of the aggregates. Perhaps some people think this can exist without a sense awareness, but in my eyes awareness is not existing without an object.

And of course, wishful thinking. To say there is some consciousness existing in/of nibbana is easier to accept than nibbana being the end of all consciousness. And so this is what a lot of minds will naturally turn towards I think. The mind turns that into the 'truth' even if just to protect itself.

But my advise is to investigate assumptions like this deeper and see if they fit into the aggregates. Not to say this is right and the rest is wrong.

So you're saying that based upon your own personal experience, you are clear about this "mind consciousness" experience, but Ven. Thanissaro is confused about the whole thing, misleading everyone, and engaging in wishful thinking in talking about "consciousness without surface." Really what he is talking about, and what the suttas are referring to with "viññanam anidassanam" - according to you, is simply what you've seen, which is just mind-consciousness. Right?

What I was saying were just some ways I can imagine people seeing as outside of the aggregates, but where Ven. Thanissaro sees or defines it, I don't know. Perhaps Ven. Thanissaro sees it not in the mind but in the other senses also. Or he bases his opinion on his interpretation of the suttas. How can I know? As far as I'm aware of his teachings he doesn't define it, only sort of says there is a consciousness outside of the aggregates. And I think he's wrong. But I'm sure he's not trying to mislead anyone.

But I see what I was really trying to say didn't come across. Which is everybody should try to see if they can find the 'thing' outside of the aggregates in their own experience and not in the suttas. To me it is obvious that with suttas one doesn't really get far if only because venerable Thanissaro and others will just interpret them differently.

reflection wrote:What I was saying were just some ways I can imagine people seeing as outside of the aggregates, but where Ven. Thanissaro sees or defines it, I don't know. Perhaps Ven. Thanissaro sees it not in the mind but in the other senses also. Or he bases his opinion on his interpretation of the suttas. How can I know? As far as I'm aware of his teachings he doesn't define it, only sort of says there is a consciousness outside of the aggregates. And I think he's wrong. But I'm sure he's not trying to mislead anyone.

But I see what I was really trying to say didn't come across. Which is everybody should try to see if they can find the 'thing' outside of the aggregates in their own experience and not in the suttas. To me it is obvious that with suttas one doesn't really get far if only because venerable Thanissaro and others will just interpret them differently.

You do admit, don't you, that you don't have any personal direct knowledge of what this passage is referring to? Don't you admit that you really don't understand what this is about? And it is in the suttas, so you can't have one section of the suttas doing battle with another section, only paying attention to an interpretation of one section that you understand, and ignoring another section which you don't.

"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

Also here, it doesn't matter what I think. Even if I were to say I think I understand it, judging on how you ask it, probably you would still think I don't. And that would get us in the same position as when I said I think I don't understand it. Which either way I don't see being useful for you, me or anybody else. It surely won't do what I intended, which is to get people to investigate their own experience. Now, I hope we can continue in a more fashionable and useful way without getting personal about it. Otherwise I see no much use in keeping this conversation going.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

acinteyyo wrote:But it is what the Buddha taught. Let's see what's everything, the All.

Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."SN35.23

Please note: The sutta doesn't say that nothing exists outside of "The All". It merely states that one cannot explain it. Furthermore, saying "it lies beyond range" appears to hint that there may be "something".

I think to say the phrase "it lies beyond range" appears to hint that there may be "something" is already to much as well as to say there may be nothing. In my eyes the phrase doesn't tell us anything more than it's impossible to explain anything about what lies beyond range, period.

Alex123 wrote:

sabbe dhamma anatta

Not everything has to be included in "dhamma", especially "sabbe dhamma".

The word "dhamma" is a complicated one and has to be understood in context. I admit that there are suttas where the word "dhamma" does not contain the unconditioned but there are suttas where "dhamma" includes the unconditioned. See the comment on AN10.58. Therefore we cannot simply give the word "dhamma" one meaning which has to fit everywhere. For example when it comes to the 1. verse of the Dhammapada, dhammā is not the translation for "mental states" but the translation for "states". The first sentence is "manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā. I would translate it something like "phenomena (dhammā) are directed by the mind (manopubbaṅgamā), mind precedes (manoseṭṭhā) the mind made (manomayā)" but I'm not a pali expert.

Alex123 wrote:Since Nibbāna, for example, is not rooted in desire and is not mind made - thus sabbe dhamma excludes at least one thing, Nibbāna.

I disagree. Probably we have to agree that we disagree, but your conclusion can only be made if one accepts that "dhamma" in this context means "phenomena rooted in desire" and/or "mind made phenomena" and nothing else. I for my part believe that "dhamma" in sabbe dhammā anattā" means conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. If your interested take a look on that topic here -> viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1581

Alex123 wrote:And

Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas." MN22

Here again the word "dhamma" also has limited scope. So "sabbe dhamma anatta" might not refer to absolutely everything describable and not describable.

Yes indeed another meaning. Here the word "Dhamma" means "teachings", "doctrine" or "truths" but not "phenomena". Usually "Dhamma" with capital letter refers to the teachings or truths not to "phenomena" or "things"As I said, it is difficult and significance exceedingly depends on context.

I do not claim that my interpretation is the one and only true interpretation. It's just the way I see it.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

Acinteyyo wrote: In my eyes the phrase doesn't tell us anything more than it's impossible to explain anything about what lies beyond range, period.

Impossible to explain does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.

Acinteyyo wrote:The word "dhamma" is a complicated one and has to be understood in context.

Right. So dhamma in "sabbe dhamma anatta" might be limited in scope.

Of course implying that Atta exists is wrong view.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Acinteyyo wrote: In my eyes the phrase doesn't tell us anything more than it's impossible to explain anything about what lies beyond range, period.

Impossible to explain does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.

But I still don't get why you seem to place so much emphasize on that while leaving out that impossible to explain equally doesn't mean that it exists. We can only speak of existence and non-existence with reference to something in range.I think to hold a speculative view about existence or non-existence with reference to what lies beyond range is of no use.

Alex123 wrote:Of course implying that Atta exists is wrong view.

I tend to think that this oversimplifies the matter. I would say, of course implying that atta exists within the aggregates, within range is wrong view. But it's important not to neglect that implying that atta exists as well as implying that it doesn't exist beyond range is also wrong view because it would be an assumption without base.best wishes, acinteyyo

Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

Hm. I think people who love to quote SN 35.23 really need to read all "the all" suttas to be in line with what is being conveyed there. That would be SN 35.23 through 35.52. SN 35.23 does not stand alone as some kind of philosophical/metaphysical trump card. That simply establishes the scope of what the Buddha is talking about in the following suttas. The emphasis is on abandoning the all, understanding the all, experiencing revulsion and dispassion for the all, uprooting all conceivings.... for the sake of ending suffering, the liberation of the mind by non-clinging.

Last edited by kirk5a on Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

acinteyyo wrote:I'm not talking about the doctrine of no ontological self as being the truth about how things really are. Neither do I approve that such a doctrine is about how things really are.The point I'm trying to make clear is that any doctrine of self leads to confusion. It doesn't matter whether it's a doctrine of "there is" a self or a doctrine of "there is" no self or the self "is" like this or that or the self "is not" like this or that. It's important to get the frame of reference correctly. Anything considered being the self (permanent and so on) within the All is to ignore the characteristics of the All as being impermanent, not-self (not mine, not me, not what I am) and stressful. Anything else lies beyond range and it isn't appropriate to consider what is beyond range in the first place.

No disagreement here. This is essentially Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view, for which some Buddhists criticize him.

reflection wrote:But I don't think the dhamma is to be practiced and proven for oneself by disproving all other possibilities one by one.

If one to become a Buddhist, convert to Buddhism, then it has to be at the exclusion of all other paths.

reflection wrote:Your own experience is all you've got, it's all you have to work with.

This is one step away from solipsism!!

And by looking deeply like this, for me, the existence of something like the old Viking gods is more likely than the existence of a sort of seventh consciousness. Why? The gods may hide themselves, but if the outside-of-aggregates-consciousness would exist, it would be for me to experience. And I don't. And well, frankly I think nobody does and people mistake some form of mind-consciousness as God consciousness or nibbana consciousness.

It depends on what one means by "God." There are many doctrines on "God."

But what views and way of investigating makes me peaceful, I feel I should share sometimes.

binocular wrote:Yes, those who assume in various ways. There may be problems for those who assume, this is well-established.The passage you quoted doesn't say anything about people who might have revelation from God.

And that assumes that there is some sort of god thing from which one can have a revelation.

I anticipated this objection.

Unless one, in ontological terms, declares there is no God (and thus no revelation from God), one has to allow for the possibility that God may exist (and that thus, may give people revelations about Himself).

Given the various claims of revelation from some sort of god things can be highly contradictory, that god thing must have a very perverse sense of humor. The Kosha quote is to the point.

Not at all, unless we settle for a rather superficial view of what the various theisms have to offer. Operating out of a sub-standard definition of "God" is bound to lead to problems.

acinteyyo wrote:I think to hold a speculative view about existence or non-existence with reference to what lies beyond range is of no use.

Sure. But this also means we take for granted that what we now consider to be the range, is indeed all there is to the range. This way, we may actually sell ourselves short, by assuming too much, or too little about what is possible and what isn't.